我國法人本身之侵權行為責任基礎，通說係以民法第28條為依據。此外，法人之受僱人侵害他人權利時，法人依民法第188條規定，亦應負損害賠償責任。至於法人得否依據民法第184條規定負擔本身之侵權責任，學說上論述甚少，我國法院則採取否定說。實則，民法第28條及民法第188條之侵權責任，均以董事或受僱人具有侵權行為為要件，與民法第184條直接以法人本身為侵權行為人之責任類型，所有不同。本文首先檢討我國法院對於法人侵權責任之見解，其次討論民法第184條對法人適用之否定說見解，再次藉由日本法、德國法及歐洲侵權行為法原則之規定，檢討法人企業責任成立之理論建構；最後建構我國法關於法人自己責任之基礎。本文認為，在採取法人實在說之理論以及過失概念客觀化之後，肯定法人本身之團體意思，依客觀環境考察判斷法人是否具有過失，並無窒礙難行之處。因而我國應採取外國法之發展，肯定法人侵權行為得適用民法第184條成立侵權責任，以免法人易於脫免其賠償責任。

The legal basis of juristic persons under Taiwanese law is article 28 of the Civil Code according to the leading court decisions and law scholars. Juristic persons may be also held liable under article 188 of the Civil Code if they are the employers provided under this article. At the same time, the Taiwanese Supreme Court denies article 184 to be the basis of tort liability for juristic persons. Nonetheless, all of Japanese law, German law, and the Principles of European Tort Law confirm that juristic persons shall be held liable for tort due to their own wrongful actions under the provisions equivalent to article 184 of the Civil Code. This article argues that juristic persons shall be held liable for their own wrongful actions, no matter whether their representatives or employees are individually held liable. Article 184 shall be a ground for juristic persons to compensate the injured if they have done something wrong.